SmashWiki:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

SmashWiki:Requests for adminship (view source)

Revision as of 19:02, August 16, 2023

2,499 bytes added , 1 year ago

resolving

Toomai

Bureaucrats, Administrators

25,101

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-This is the page for '''nominating sysops''' for SmashWiki. If you don't know what a sysop is, the [[Help:FAQ|FAQ]] has some information about the job, and you can also find a [[Special:Listusers/sysop|full list of current sysops]].
+{{policy}}
+{{shortcut|[[SW:RFA]]}}
+This is the page for '''requesting [[SmashWiki:Administrators|adminship]]''' for SmashWiki.
-Here are the rules for nominating sysops:
+==Rules and regulations==
-* Only self-nominations are allowed. If you think that another member would make a good sysop, then you can convince them to nominate themselves. You cannot, however, make a nomination on behalf of another user.
+* Only self-nominations are allowed. If you think that another user would make a good administrator, then you can try convincing them to nominate themselves. You cannot make a nomination on behalf of another user.
-* All new nominees should post their name below as a new page header (i.e. <nowiki>==Username==</nowiki>). Underneath, the user should state why he would like to become a sysop, and why he thinks he would be fit for the job. Posting examples of notable work that the nominee has contributed is highly encouraged. The nominee should be sure to sign this post.
+* Candidates should describe why the wiki should want them to be administrators, not why they want to be administrators on the wiki. Users who wish to be promoted should demonstrate a steady commitment to this wiki, and be able to point to reasons that the sysop tools would allow them to better contribute to the wiki beyond banal janitorial work.
-* Users who wish to support, oppose, or comment on the nomination may do so by using bullet points underneath the original post (newer bullets toward the bottom). To be clear, ''this is not a vote, and this is not a democratic process.'' Although the views of the user community are important and will be taken into account in the final decision, the decision will ultimately be up to the current sysop team and Smash World leadership.
+* After sufficient time has passed to allow all users who wish to express an opinion the chance to do so, a decision will be made based on community consensus as to whether or not the request will succeed. Once a decision has been made, the discussion will be archived.
-* After sufficient time has passed to allow all sysops who wish to express an opinion the chance to do so, a decision will be made among the sysops as to whether or not the nomination will succeed. If the nomination succeeds, a bureaucrat will make the nominee a sysop. If not, a sysop will close discussion on the nominee. Once a decision has been made, the discussion will be archived and moved to an appropriate subpage.
+* Selections of administrators are not a simple vote count, or majority opinion. Indeed, a bureaucrat may decide against the "popular vote" if they believe the opposing side has provided more convincing arguments, or that the candidate has failed to satisfactorily respond to questions about their merits, and RfAs have been failed in the past that technically had a majority of the "votes" being supportive.
-* Nominations will be open on an ongoing basis for the time being. In the future, however, nominations may only be open for prescribed periods of time. This page will be protected if nominations are not being accepted.
+* When supporting or opposing a candidate, provide good and well-written reasons as to why you support or oppose the candidate. Comments that describe in detail why the candidate should/should not become an administrator carry far more weight than a simple support/oppose. Additionally, attaching intensifiers to your support/oppose (e.g. saying you ''strongly support'' the candidate) will not make your "vote" carry any more weight.
+* The candidate, or any other user, are allowed to respond to any other user's "vote", and are encouraged to, if a user has stated something factually incorrect in their reasoning or has otherwise said anything else refutable. Such replies should be written in the comments section, rather than directly replying to the user's "vote", so that the "voting" sections can be kept clean. Additionally, while the candidate and other users are encouraged to refute another user's reasoning when applicable, it should be within reason; a candidate or staunch supporter who tries shoddily refuting everyone that opposes will likely just worsen their case and bolster the opposition.
+* [[SW:RB|Rollback status]] is not required for a successful RfA, and a candidate having rollback will not make their case for adminship any stronger. Users who do not have rollback and only want sysop tools for quick reverts of vandalism will be directed towards the [[SW:RFR|appropriate request]].
+* [[SW:EST|Established status]] is also not required for a successful RfA, but users who haven't been around long enough or haven't contributed enough to be established will likely have little support unless they have quickly proven themselves extraordinary.
+** [[SW:AUTO|Autoconfirmed status]], however, ''is required'', and a user will not even be able to create an RfA if they are not autoconfirmed.
+* Upon request, a prospective administrator may be given a scenario and asked his/her opinion on how s/he would handle it.
+* Users that have been blocked in the past, or who have previously made an RfA and failed, are no less eligible for adminship. However, such users should be able to demonstrate how they have improved since the block/previous RfA, lest their RfA find serious opposition.
+* Former administrators that have been [[SW:RFD|formally demoted by a RfD]] are similarly no less eligible for adminship, but will certainly face stalwart opposition to their RfA if they are unable to demonstrate serious reformation since their demotion. Former administrators that were demoted for [[SW:ADMIN#Retired|inactivity or formally retiring]] but wish to regain sysop powers are also eligible for adminship, but may be able to skip the RfA process entirely if the current active administration feels they are still clearly well-suited for the role.
-<big><center>''' Place new nominations below, newer nominations at the bottom of the page. '''</center></big>
+==Past nominations==
-----
+*For a list of all previous requests for adminship that ended with the candidate's promotion, please see [[:Category:Accepted RfAs|this category]].
+*For a list of all previous requests for adminship wherein the candidate was not promoted, please see [[:Category:Failed RfAs|this category]].
-==F8AL==
+==How to nominate==
-Hello, I would like to become a sysop because I browse SmashBoards and SmashWiki daily and I tend to make alot of edits to existing pages (i.e. adding information, deleting spam/unneccessary information etc.).  I am also quite knowledgable on Smash Bros. and plenty of other games. I think that I would be fit for this job because I get along with everyone and I'm friendly and open to critism and suggestions.  I would not become "power-hungry" if I became a sysop because I want everyone to contribute to SmashWiki and that everyone should be heard.  Thank you for your time and for reading this. - F8AL
+If you have not had a request for adminship page before, follow this two-step process.
-*I support F8AL, he had been posting on Smash Boards for quite awhile, and he keeps a number of pages up to date. [[User:JohnCurriSuxAtSmash|JohnCurriSuxAtSmash]] 16:55, November 22, 2007 (EST)
-*I'll also gladly support F8AL. He seems to make good posts on SWF, and does decent edits to this site. I can't see him being a bad choice for Sysop...ness at all.
+#Go to the end of the [[#Current requests|requests]] section below, and add the following text:<br><code><nowiki>{{{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Username}}</nowiki></code> Where "Username" is the name of the user being nominated.
+#Click on the created red link, and add:<br><code><nowiki>{{subst:rfa|Username|Comment explaining your nomination. ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>
-- [[User:Blackadder|Blackadder]]
+However, if you have had a previous request for adminship, follow this process instead.
+#Go to the end of the [[#Current requests|requests]] section below, and add the following text:<br><code><nowiki>{{{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Username (#)}}</nowiki></code><br>Where "Username" is the name of the user being nominated, and where # is 2 for the second RfA, 3 for the third, and so on.
+#Click on the created red link, and add:<br><code><nowiki>{{subst:rfa|Username|Comment explaining your nomination. ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>
+==Current requests==
+''none''
+[[Category:SmashWiki]]
+[[Category:Administration]]